WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the federal Defense of Marriage Act, a provision that denies federal benefits to legally married gay couples, is unconstitutional.

In a 5-4 ruling, the Court said DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.

“DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty.”

The ruling is here (PDF).

 Ouze wrote:
No surprise either on the ruling, or how the vote broke down.

Anyway I still think the state has no business in the marrying business at all, regardless of what consenting adult marries whom. It's really just not a state function in my opinion, it's a private covenant between adults.

 d-usa wrote:
So on DOMA:

The SCOTUS didn't strike down the DOMA as a whole, they just struck down the federal definition of "marriage" and "spouse".

So it appears that Section 2 still stands?

 Alfndrate wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So on DOMA:

The SCOTUS didn't strike down the DOMA as a whole, they just struck down the federal definition of "marriage" and "spouse".

So it appears that Section 2 still stands?

That does appear to be the case.

 Alfndrate wrote:
Lol, based on my edit does that mean that if someone lived in a state that allowed gay marriage, got married to their partner and then moved to a state that didn't recognize gay marriage, they wouldn't be considered legally married?

 Seaward wrote:
The Prop 8 case is what I'm interested in.

The court also dismissed a challenge to California's gay marriage ban, ruling that supporters of the ban did not have the legal standing, or right, to appeal a lower court's decision striking down Proposition 8

 whembly wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Lol, based on my edit does that mean that if someone lived in a state that allowed gay marriage, got married to their partner and then moved to a state that didn't recognize gay marriage, they wouldn't be considered legally married?

That is a problem... it just won't work.

What if they moved, then decided to get divorced? How is that going to work?

Like Ouze said, the states shouldn't be in the business of defining marriage to begin with.

 whembly wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Lol, based on my edit does that mean that if someone lived in a state that allowed gay marriage, got married to their partner and then moved to a state that didn't recognize gay marriage, they wouldn't be considered legally married?

That is a problem... it just won't work.

What if they moved, then decided to get divorced? How is that going to work?

Like Ouze said, the states shouldn't be in the business of defining marriage to begin with.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Lol, based on my edit does that mean that if someone lived in a state that allowed gay marriage, got married to their partner and then moved to a state that didn't recognize gay marriage, they wouldn't be considered legally married?

That is a problem... it just won't work.

What if they moved, then decided to get divorced? How is that going to work?

Like Ouze said, the states shouldn't be in the business of defining marriage to begin with.

There are just too many legal benefits, and private benefits, to marriage to go away from it now. There has to be a system to recognize and validate it or else anybody can just simply say "we are married" and get those benefits.

My conservative family takes issue with gay marriage because according to them "marriage" is a religious word and therefore has special sacred meanings. My take on that has always been that the states should stop issuing marriage licenses (if marriage is religious thing, then states should not sponsor religious institutions) and simply issue "domestic partnership licenses" for everyone. If you want to get married, take your domestic partnership license to your church and have a religious marriage ceremony. If you are not religious have a secular official do whatever ceremony you want. Or just sign your partnership license at the court house and be done with it.

But I'm a filthy liberal

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Lol, based on my edit does that mean that if someone lived in a state that allowed gay marriage, got married to their partner and then moved to a state that didn't recognize gay marriage, they wouldn't be considered legally married?

That is a problem... it just won't work.

What if they moved, then decided to get divorced? How is that going to work?

Like Ouze said, the states shouldn't be in the business of defining marriage to begin with.

There are just too many legal benefits, and private benefits, to marriage to go away from it now. There has to be a system to recognize and validate it or else anybody can just simply say "we are married" and get those benefits.

My conservative family takes issue with gay marriage because according to them "marriage" is a religious word and therefore has special sacred meanings. My take on that has always been that the states should stop issuing marriage licenses (if marriage is religious thing, then states should not sponsor religious institutions) and simply issue "domestic partnership licenses" for everyone. If you want to get married, take your domestic partnership license to your church and have a religious marriage ceremony. If you are not religious have a secular official do whatever ceremony you want. Or just sign your partnership license at the court house and be done with it.

But I'm a filthy liberal

 d-usa wrote:
I need to read the actual wording of the DOMA ruling.

While not invalidating Section 2, I wonder if the reasoning they used to invalidate Section 3 would set a precedent to challenge the laws of individual states.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I need to read the actual wording of the DOMA ruling.

While not invalidating Section 2, I wonder if the reasoning they used to invalidate Section 3 would set a precedent to challenge the laws of individual states.

They struck down DOMA sec. 3 on equal protection grounds in a 5-4 decision. Good...

Let's talk consequences: Gay spouses may now file joint taxes, may donate jointly, may petition for legal residence for non-citizen spouses, may now obtain changes to their passports (married name corrections) the same as straight spouses. Military gay spouses are now entitled to the same survivor, housing, PX, and travel benefits as straight spouses.

SECTION II-35.
Marriage defined – Construction of law and Constitution – Recognition of out-of-state marriages – Penalty.
A. Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. Neither this Constitution nor any other provision of law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

``In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any
ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative
bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means
only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife,
and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is
a husband or a wife.''.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
The Prop 8 case is what I'm interested in.

The court also dismissed a challenge to California's gay marriage ban, ruling that supporters of the ban did not have the legal standing, or right, to appeal a lower court's decision striking down Proposition 8

 Seaward wrote:

You're fething kidding me. They punted on Prop 8?

Chief Justice John Roberts joined with Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan to rule the defenders of Prop 8 did not have the standing to defend the ban in court. The unlikely coalition of liberals and conservatives argued that the Prop 8 supporters could not prove they were directly injured by the lower court's decision to overturn the ban and allow gay people to marry.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

You're fething kidding me. They punted on Prop 8?

They sure did.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined with Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan to rule the defenders of Prop 8 did not have the standing to defend the ban in court. The unlikely coalition of liberals and conservatives argued that the Prop 8 supporters could not prove they were directly injured by the lower court's decision to overturn the ban and allow gay people to marry.

 Seaward wrote:

You're fething kidding me. They punted on Prop 8?

 d-usa wrote:
A precedent like Section 3 of the DOMA being unconstitutional due to a violation of the equal protection clause?

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
A precedent like Section 3 of the DOMA being unconstitutional due to a violation of the equal protection clause?

Is the ruling broad enough to prevent more Prop 8-style attempts?

 d-usa wrote:

My conservative family takes issue with gay marriage because according to them "marriage" is a religious word and therefore has special sacred meanings. My take on that has always been that the states should stop issuing marriage licenses (if marriage is religious thing, then states should not sponsor religious institutions) and simply issue "domestic partnership licenses" for everyone. If you want to get married, take your domestic partnership license to your church and have a religious marriage ceremony. If you are not religious have a secular official do whatever ceremony you want. Or just sign your partnership license at the court house and be done with it.

But I'm a filthy liberal

 Rented Tritium wrote:
The pro-doma oral arguments were so unbelievably weak this was a given.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
I want to read some delicious butthurt, but I can't find any. Even my conservative friends are pretty happy about this.

 d-usa wrote:
I wonder how long it will take for my job to consider gay-partners when next-of-kin decisions are needed.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I wonder how long it will take for my job to consider gay-partners when next-of-kin decisions are needed.

Should be immediate...right?

 Monster Rain wrote:
This is Obama's first step toward making us all get gay-married!

 Jihadin wrote:
Actually since I remember where D-USA work. NoK notification is whoever the individual put down to be notify first.

How fast did it adapt to DADT?

 d-usa wrote:
My conservative family takes issue with gay marriage because according to them "marriage" is a religious word and therefore has special sacred meanings. My take on that has always been that the states should stop issuing marriage licenses (if marriage is religious thing, then states should not sponsor religious institutions) and simply issue "domestic partnership licenses" for everyone. If you want to get married, take your domestic partnership license to your church and have a religious marriage ceremony. If you are not religious have a secular official do whatever ceremony you want. Or just sign your partnership license at the court house and be done with it.

The Court’s reasoning does not take into account the fundamental principles or the practical dynamics of the initiative system in California, which uses this mechanism to control and to bypass public officials—the same officials who would not defend the initiative, an injury the Court now leaves unremedied. The Court’s decision also has implications for the 26 other States that use an initiative or popular referendum system and which, like California, may choose to have initiative proponents stand in for the State when public officials decline to defend an initiative in litigation.

 whembly wrote:
As much as I tend to look at gay rights as another civil rights case... Scalia has an interesting dissention:

The Court’s reasoning does not take into account the fundamental principles or the practical dynamics of the initiative system in California, which uses this mechanism to control and to bypass public officials—the same officials who would not defend the initiative, an injury the Court now leaves unremedied. The Court’s decision also has implications for the 26 other States that use an initiative or popular referendum system and which, like California, may choose to have initiative proponents stand in for the State when public officials decline to defend an initiative in litigation.

What he's saying is that the whole point of the initiative system (referundum) is to bypass the elected representatives and pass the sorts of laws the permanent political class does not like, but the actual citizens do...

Now the Supreme Court has effectively ruled this system to be kaput... because the exact same permanent political class the citizens sought to bypass, can render any initiative inoperative by refusing to recognize it and by refusing to defend it in court.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:
As much as I tend to look at gay rights as another civil rights case... Scalia has an interesting dissention:

The Court’s reasoning does not take into account the fundamental principles or the practical dynamics of the initiative system in California, which uses this mechanism to control and to bypass public officials—the same officials who would not defend the initiative, an injury the Court now leaves unremedied. The Court’s decision also has implications for the 26 other States that use an initiative or popular referendum system and which, like California, may choose to have initiative proponents stand in for the State when public officials decline to defend an initiative in litigation.

What he's saying is that the whole point of the initiative system (referundum) is to bypass the elected representatives and pass the sorts of laws the permanent political class does not like, but the actual citizens do...

Now the Supreme Court has effectively ruled this system to be kaput... because the exact same permanent political class the citizens sought to bypass, can render any initiative inoperative by refusing to recognize it and by refusing to defend it in court.

That's a stupid argument, and you should know better.

Tho permanent political class didn't defend it because it was unconstitutional, there was no reason to defend it. This case did nothing to render the initiative system kaput, it enforced that the Constitution trumps a bunch of people who are butt-hurt about a social issue because they can't get their heads out of the 1930's.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:
As much as I tend to look at gay rights as another civil rights case... Scalia has an interesting dissention:

The Court’s reasoning does not take into account the fundamental principles or the practical dynamics of the initiative system in California, which uses this mechanism to control and to bypass public officials—the same officials who would not defend the initiative, an injury the Court now leaves unremedied. The Court’s decision also has implications for the 26 other States that use an initiative or popular referendum system and which, like California, may choose to have initiative proponents stand in for the State when public officials decline to defend an initiative in litigation.

What he's saying is that the whole point of the initiative system (referundum) is to bypass the elected representatives and pass the sorts of laws the permanent political class does not like, but the actual citizens do...

Now the Supreme Court has effectively ruled this system to be kaput... because the exact same permanent political class the citizens sought to bypass, can render any initiative inoperative by refusing to recognize it and by refusing to defend it in court.

That's a stupid argument, and you should know better.

I should? Dude... project much?

Tho permanent political class didn't defend it because it was unconstitutional, there was no reason to defend it. This case did nothing to render the initiative system kaput, it enforced that the Constitution trumps a bunch of people who are butt-hurt about a social issue because they can't get their heads out of the 1930's.

I think you missed his entire point...

 d-usa wrote:


Enlighten me, what point did I miss.

That he thinks that a state should be forced to defend a law that violates the constitution simply because a loud majority wants to violate the constitution?

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


Enlighten me, what point did I miss.

That he thinks that a state should be forced to defend a law that violates the constitution simply because a loud majority wants to violate the constitution?

First of all... I'm on your fething side on this issue.

Secondly... I was thinking Scalia, but it was Kennedy that wrote this dissent...

Thirdly...it's interesting because there's 20 some-odd states that allows referendum of these sorts. I'm not talking about this Prop 8 scenario, I'm talking about something that the population "wants" but, the political class does not.

For instance, let's take the Keystone Pipeline dealio... what if the citizen passes the referendum in PA to allow the Keystone Pipeline to move forward, but the Sierra Nevada group sues the state to prevent the implementation of the pipeline project. The PA dept of justice refuses to defend the case, because they're big supporters of the Sierra Nevada group. See where I'm going?

 Ouze wrote:
I also think the Obama administration was wrong to decline to defend it. I don't think it's the purview of the executive to decide what laws it should or should not enforce for whatever reason (except, perhaps, executive orders?). DOMA was bad law, but it was the law, duly passed by the legislative. Perhaps Dogma or Sebster or someone like that can convince me otherwise but that also seems wrong to me.

 Polonius wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I also think the Obama administration was wrong to decline to defend it. I don't think it's the purview of the executive to decide what laws it should or should not enforce for whatever reason (except, perhaps, executive orders?). DOMA was bad law, but it was the law, duly passed by the legislative. Perhaps Dogma or Sebster or someone like that can convince me otherwise but that also seems wrong to me.

Well Congress can and did defend a law if the executive chooses not to.

The executive is, well, the executive. It's the branch that does the actual governing within the bounds established by the courts and with the laws enacted by the legislator. While there is a presumption that the executive will enforce the law, that's actually not required. On a small scale, think of any time a cop did not issue you a ticket. Discretion is part of the authority of the executive.

As for defending the law, I think it's more appropriate to allow a branch that wants the law upheld to defend it, rather than attempt a half hearted defense. this isn't like that episode of Star Trek where riker had to argue that Data was property. There are plenty of government lawyers willing and able to step in.

 Polonius wrote:
Well Congress can and did defend a law if the executive chooses not to.

The executive is, well, the executive. It's the branch that does the actual governing within the bounds established by the courts and with the laws enacted by the legislator. While there is a presumption that the executive will enforce the law, that's actually not required. On a small scale, think of any time a cop did not issue you a ticket. Discretion is part of the authority of the executive.

As for defending the law, I think it's more appropriate to allow a branch that wants the law upheld to defend it, rather than attempt a half hearted defense. this isn't like that episode of Star Trek where riker had to argue that Data was property. There are plenty of government lawyers willing and able to step in.

 Polonius wrote:
Since even Democratic voters in the US are pretty strict "law and order" voters, nobody gets far by failing to enforce the laws.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Since even Democratic voters in the US are pretty strict "law and order" voters, nobody gets far by failing to enforce the laws.

Except when it comes to immigration

 Polonius wrote:
I appreciate a good rimshot, (of course, Republicans have no problem ignoring Insider Trading laws), but even that is a complex issue. Some interesting polling numbers:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/22/americans-immigration-pew-poll-congress-amnesty-citizenship/2448895/

TLDR: basically most Americans of both parties seem to think that both mass deportation and mass amnesty are stupid.

For the most part, Americans dont' understand that Judge Dredd was meant to be a satire, not a fantasy.

 Jihadin wrote:


Frankly I don't care. DADT and DOMA did not effect me or mission execution. Of course I did not care unless it becomes my issue. Example be flaunting the repeal of DADT and DOMA in uniform and/or out of uniform. As long as they are treated the same as male-female married couple. No favoritism, No specials, and No damn Pet project favoritism

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:


Frankly I don't care. DADT and DOMA did not effect me or mission execution. Of course I did not care unless it becomes my issue. Example be flaunting the repeal of DADT and DOMA in uniform and/or out of uniform. As long as they are treated the same as male-female married couple. No favoritism, No specials, and No damn Pet project favoritism

100% this.

Positive discrimination is as much the bane of equality as prejudice.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I appreciate a good rimshot, (of course, Republicans have no problem ignoring Insider Trading laws), but even that is a complex issue. Some interesting polling numbers:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/22/americans-immigration-pew-poll-congress-amnesty-citizenship/2448895/

TLDR: basically most Americans of both parties seem to think that both mass deportation and mass amnesty are stupid.

For the most part, Americans dont' understand that Judge Dredd was meant to be a satire, not a fantasy.

I wasn't trying to make a partisan point, apologies if it came off that way.
As a recent migrant I'd just like to see the laws on the books enforced. I can't say I'm a huge fan of people deciding that immigration law doesn't apply to them and then demanding special treatment after.

 Polonius wrote:
Well, when it comes to social rules, everybody is a hypocrite. Virtually nobody holds themself to the same standard they hold others, especially a vauge "other." Hypocrisy, of course, has two elements: the stated belief, and the opposite action. We generally see any disparite as hypocrisy, even if it's just really loud and extreme belief, and relatively modest opposite action (see Al Gore and his wasteful house, Rush and his drugs, etc.)

I think that with immigration law, pretty much nobody thinks that it's good law based on principles of national interest. Everybody knows that it's a crooked goat rodeo, so who cares? Add in the fact that even moderately cosmopolitan people probably know at least one person with a horrific immigration story, and the average american doesn't see Immigration law in a favorable light.

Anyway, the point is that Americans like their law enforcement, to the extent that it intereferes with their actions.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Immigration law (or law of any stripe) is just a wee bit different to "social rules"

 Ahtman wrote:
Not really. They weren't carved in stone waiting for humans to arrive to give us wisdom from on high. They were made by us, and as such are informed by our 'social rules' and culture.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Not really. They weren't carved in stone waiting for humans to arrive to give us wisdom from on high. They were made by us, and as such are informed by our 'social rules' and culture.

World of difference between not following the law of the land, and using the wrong fork at supper

 Ahtman wrote:
Which is why we aren't discussing etiquette, but culture. If immigration law is not tied to the culture then most nations would be the same in regards to it, but they aren't because they are expressions of the cultures that made them.

 d-usa wrote:
Jews can still have marriage ceremonies at their temple, as well as Muslims. Take any kind of religious name out of the state issued license, let everybody go to the institution of their choice and do their preferred song and dance before singing it.

But like I said, that's just me.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Jews can still have marriage ceremonies at their temple, as well as Muslims. Take any kind of religious name out of the state issued license, let everybody go to the institution of their choice and do their preferred song and dance before singing it.

But like I said, that's just me.

There is no religious name in the state issued license. The word marriage is not religious.

 d-usa wrote:
You can have a giant argument about who hijacked what word and keep any progress from being made because of it. Or you can remove a single word and treat everybody equally. It's just an easy way to avoid the headache of multiple parties fighting over a stupid definition.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
The problem with that is you are still denying people who don't follow a specific set of invisble friends, or who are in a relationship the invisible friend appreciation clubs don't approve of the ability to get married, while reserving "being married" for those who have invisible friends.

It's like saying "hey, you can totally drive a car... unfortunately because you like the colour blue rather than the colour green, we are not going to give you a driving licence but a "certificate of participating on the road", and unfortunately unlike the people who like green you can't get breakdown coverage because you technically don't have a driving licence."

 Seaward wrote:
No, it's the exact opposite of that, actually. Everyone gets breakdown coverage,

everyone gets a "certificate of participating on the road," but some people who drive blue cars also hold a private celebratory ceremony that has nothing to do with anything the state does or does not give.

It's the good solution.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Is everyone getting the same rights now? tax, inheritance, medical choice for partners, etc? I have to say some of the news reports I have seen were slightly confused on the issue

... except that marraige isn't a religious state of existance so withholding the ability of people to be married and instead giving them a certificate of participation is fething insulting when you then only allow people to be married if they have a religious service.

 Seaward wrote:
You're missing the point.

Take government out of marriage, everybody - EVERYBODY - gets civil union benefits, which should be the same as marriage is now. The government stops using marriage-related terms, and simply uses 'civil partner' or whatever. Then, whoever wants to get 'married' in the current sense can do whatever the hell they want - church wedding, wedding in a public bath house, whatever.

 Seaward wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Is everyone getting the same rights now? tax, inheritance, medical choice for partners, etc? I have to say some of the news reports I have seen were slightly confused on the issue

Not yet, but that's where it's headed, and where we ought to head by simply taking 'marriage' out of the hands of the government.

... except that marraige isn't a religious state of existance so withholding the ability of people to be married and instead giving them a certificate of participation is fething insulting when you then only allow people to be married if they have a religious service.

You're missing the point.

Take government out of marriage, everybody - EVERYBODY - gets civil union benefits, which should be the same as marriage is now. The government stops using marriage-related terms, and simply uses 'civil partner' or whatever. Then, whoever wants to get 'married' in the current sense can do whatever the hell they want - church wedding, wedding in a public bath house, whatever.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
But why shouldn't everyone - EVERYONE - get married, since that is what it is, regardless of their religion, lack of religion, or sexual preference. The Church stops trying to push for the government to use marriage alternative terms and simply accepts that it doesn't own "marriage" or whatever. Then whoever wants to get married will be married, and people who want to do other things like have a church wedding, sacrifice a goat to satan or whatever can do whatever the hell they want.

 Seaward wrote:
Why does the term matter so much to you? If no one is recognized by the government as married, would anybody be fighting over marriage equality? I doubt it.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Why does the term matter so much to you? If no one is recognized by the government as married, would anybody be fighting over marriage equality? I doubt it.

The term matters because surprisingly words matter, regardless of the tax breaks you might get, or the other rights that might be associated with something. Why did African Americans fight so hard to stop certain ways of being referred to? It's not like what people call you changes your rights if you are recognised equally under the law after all...

And I really don't get why you are pushing for the government to say everyone is in a "civil union" or some such rubbish to essentially stop anyone who isn't religious from being marr... oh, wait, I see now

 Frazzled wrote:
IN other words it has nothing to do with the actual issue for you then...

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
IN other words it has nothing to do with the actual issue for you then...

I'm sorry?

I'm replying to the points raised, not specifically to the legislation that may or my not be contained within DOMA.

 d-usa wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Jews can still have marriage ceremonies at their temple, as well as Muslims. Take any kind of religious name out of the state issued license, let everybody go to the institution of their choice and do their preferred song and dance before singing it.

But like I said, that's just me.

There is no religious name in the state issued license. The word marriage is not religious.

You can have a giant argument about who hijacked what word and keep any progress from being made because of it. Or you can remove a single word and treat everybody equally. It's just an easy way to avoid the headache of multiple parties fighting over a stupid definition.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
The term matters because surprisingly words matter, regardless of the tax breaks you might get, or the other rights that might be associated with something. Why did African Americans fight so hard to stop certain ways of being referred to? It's not like what people call you changes your rights if you are recognised equally under the law after all...

And I really don't get why you are pushing for the government to say everyone is in a "civil union" or some such rubbish to essentially stop anyone who isn't religious from being marr... oh, wait, I see now

 Seaward wrote:
We can save a metric fethton of money on lawsuits and institutional change, though, if we simply abolish marriage as a function of the state. The notion that you somehow become 'less married' if the state stops calling it that officially is a bizarre one, though.

I always thought it was about commitment to one another and the process of building a life together, but apparently, no, it really is all about whether or not your local DMV uses one specific word.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Jews can still have marriage ceremonies at their temple, as well as Muslims. Take any kind of religious name out of the state issued license, let everybody go to the institution of their choice and do their preferred song and dance before singing it.

But like I said, that's just me.

There is no religious name in the state issued license. The word marriage is not religious.

You can have a giant argument about who hijacked what word and keep any progress from being made because of it. Or you can remove a single word and treat everybody equally. It's just an easy way to avoid the headache of multiple parties fighting over a stupid definition.

My wife and I were married at the town registrar's office in Bristol, and woe betide the Christian that tells me they own that word and we are 'in a civil partnership' and my wife should instead be referred to as my 'civil partner' because we didn't marry in one of their churches.

That's religious theocracy. They don't own the word, neither does any other religion. And there were marriages long before there were Christians.

MEMORANDUM FOR HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES




From:


Elaine Kaplan
Acting Director




Subject:

Guidance on the Extension of Benefits to Married Gay and Lesbian Federal Employees, Annuitants, and Their Families




As you already know, on June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. As a result of this decision, the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) will now be able to extend benefits to Federal employees and annuitants who have legally married a spouse of the same sex.

There are numerous benefits that are affected by the Supreme Court’s decision, and it is impossible to answer today every question that you may have. Nevertheless, I want to assure you that the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is committed to working with the Department of Justice to ensure swift and seamless implementation of the Court’s ruling.

OPM will be issuing additional information covering a broader range of issues, but at this time, OPM can offer the following guidance regarding specific employee benefits that may be of particular interest:

Health Insurance (FEHB): All legally married same-sex spouses will now be eligible family members under a Self and Family enrollment. In addition, the children of same-sex marriages will be treated just as those of opposite-sex marriages and will be eligible family members according to the same eligibility guidelines. This includes coverage for children of same-sex spouses as stepchildren. Employees and annuitants will have 60 days from June 26, 2013 until August 26, 2013, to make immediate changes to their FEHB enrollment. Enrollees will continue to be eligible to make changes to their coverage options during Open Season later this year. For those employees and annuitants who already have a Self and Family insurance plan, coverage for their same-sex spouse will begin immediately upon their notifying their FEHB carrier that there is a newly eligible family member. For those employees and annuitants electing Self and Family for the first time, benefits will be effective on the first day of the first pay period after the enrollment request is received. While online enrollment systems are updated, it may be necessary for employees and annuitants to update their elections using the paper (rather than electronic) version of the SF2809 form.

Life Insurance (FEGLI): All legally married same-sex spouses and children of legal same-sex marriages are now eligible family members under the FEGLI Program, which means that employees may add coverage for a same-sex spouse and any newly eligible children under Option C. Employees will have 60 days from June 26, 2013 until August 26, 2013, to make changes to their FEGLI enrollment.

Dental and Vision Insurance (FEDVIP): As with FEHB, all legally married same-sex spouses will now be eligible family members under a Self and Family enrollment or a Self Plus One enrollment. Current FEDVIP enrollees may now call BENEFEDS (877-888-FEDS (3337)) directly to make the necessary enrollment changes. Employees will have 60 days from June 26, 2013 until August 26, 2013, to make changes to their FEDVIP enrollment. Current enrollees will also be able to make changes to their coverage options during Open Season later this year, and individuals wishing to enroll in FEDVIP for the first time may also do so at that time.

Long-Term Care Insurance (FLTCIP): All legally married same-sex spouses can now apply for long-term care insurance under FLTCIP. Same-sex spouses of employees will have 60 days from June 26, 2013, to apply for FLTCIP coverage with abbreviated underwriting.

Retirement: All retirees who are in legal same-sex marriages will have two years from the date of the Supreme Court’s decision (i.e., June 26, 2015) to inform OPM that they have a legal marriage that now qualifies for recognition and elect any changes to their retirement benefits based on their recognized marital status. In the coming days, OPM will be developing guidance to help retirees determine whether they wish to change their pension benefits in a way that will provide benefits for their surviving spouse. Retirees will need to determine whether this option makes sense for them, as making this election will likely result in a deduction to the monthly annuity that the retiree currently receives. Going forward, the same-sex spouses of retiring employees will be eligible for survivor annuities.

Flexible Spending Accounts (FSA): All employees who are in legal same-sex marriages will now be able to submit claims for medical expenses for their same-sex spouse and any newly qualifying (step)children to their flexible spending program.

Additional guidance regarding these and other benefits will be coming soon. In the meantime, questions regarding the effect of the Supreme Court’s DOMA decision on Federal employee and annuitant benefits should be directed to OPM through your agency Chief Human Capital Officer.

We appreciate your cooperation in our effort to implement the Supreme Court’s decision, and provide greater equality to Federal employees and annuitants regardless of their sexual orientation.

cc: Chief Human Capital Officers

Just two days after the Defense of Marriage Act was struck down, a Bulgarian immigrant who is married to an American man, became the first member of a same-sex couple to receive one of the biggest federal marriage benefits available. The couple's lawyer received an email on Friday night informing him that Traian Popov had already received approval for his permanent resident visa, even the Supreme Court ruling that gave that right was just a little over 48 hours old.

Popov has lived in the United States for 15 years through a long progression of student visas (he has three master's degrees and working toward a doctorate) and married his spouse, Julian Marsh, in New York last year. He'll now get all benefits of not only marriage, but other important rights, including the ability to get an actual job. And he gets to be a small footnote to a historic event.

The speed with which Popov went from legal limbo to legal recognition is remarkable, but the Immigration and Citizenship Services agency was ready to act fast once DOMA was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on Wednesday. Numerous same-sex couples have applied for green cards and been denied on the grounds that their marriages are not recognized by the federal government. However, ICS has kept all the applications for the last two years on file in anticipation of the court ruling on the matter and has immediately reserved all their decisions automatically. As long as there are no other issues with the application, they'll head back into the system and eventually to permanent status.

Cases like Popov's (gay immigrants hoping to achieve citizenship through marriage had become a key debate point in the ongoing fight over immigration reform, but the Supreme Court ruling has made that discussion moot. Popov's case also underlines how quickly the Obama Administration is working to implement the changes in law that the end of DOMA has created.

Despite the good news, there's another fight ahead for Popov, his husbands, and thousands of other same-sex couples across the country. Although they were legally married in New York, Popov and Marsh live in Florida. That puts them in the unusual circumstance of having their marriage recognized by Washington, but not by the state where they live.

 Frazzled wrote:
1. Amazingly, there's no evidence to suport the claim that there were weddings before religion.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
1. Amazingly, there's no evidence to suport the claim that there were weddings before religion.

Unless you didn't quote that part, they said before Christianity, not before religion.

 cincydooley wrote:
Amazing how fast a green card can get processed when it plays a part in new media 'hotness.'

I agree with Frazzled, I think it was, in that all couples that want protection and benefits under the law should simply be called civil unions. Had this been the case in the first place, there'd have been no 'defense of marriage' to begin with.

Also, while I don't personally care who marries who, It's pretty offensive and closed minded to automatically label anyone opposed to homosexual marriage a bigot. I realize having religious conviction these days is a bit passe', but people are allowed to maintain their beliefs without being a bigot, particularly when they can make a pretty solid claim that evolution (not god) and nature didn't intend for two people of the same sex to reproduce together.

Regardless, I hope they clean this up quickly and get done with the other media hotness (abortion) so we can finally get to cleaning the finances up in the US.

 cincydooley wrote:
Amazing how fast a green card can get processed when it plays a part in new media 'hotness.'

 Seaward wrote:
Godspeed through the maelstrom, little sailboat. Godspeed.

 Frazzled wrote:
Something about focusing on the USA's financial problems after this gets cleared up. HAHAH

 Frazzled wrote:
You would be wrong in that. Very few in Washington want to fix that.

 Frazzled wrote:
You would be wrong in that. Very few in Washington want to fix that.

 Frazzled wrote:
You would be wrong in that. Very few in Washington want to fix that.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You would be wrong in that. Very few in Washington want to fix that.

Well, they want it fixed, but they want it fixed in such a way that their constituents (actual and partisan) benefit; which leads to a minimum of 536 different, relevant opinions.

 grayshadow87 wrote:

Precisely. Social issues are what get people riled up and gets them to stop thinking about more crucial matters, so they'd rather "solve" them instead.

 grayshadow87 wrote:
Precisely. Social issues are what get people riled up and gets them to stop thinking about more crucial matters, so they'd rather "solve" them instead.

 Frazzled wrote:

I would disagree. I don't think many of them see it as an issue.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

I would disagree. I don't think many of them see it as an issue.

Then why have there been repeated battles over the budget?

 Frazzled wrote:

Because they don't see it as an issue. If they did there wouldn't be a battle.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Because they don't see it as an issue. If they did there wouldn't be a battle.

If everyone agreed there would be no disagreement.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Because they don't see it as an issue. If they did there wouldn't be a battle.

If everyone agreed there would be no disagreement.

 cincydooley wrote:
but people are allowed to maintain their beliefs without being a bigot, particularly when they can make a pretty solid claim that evolution (not god) and nature didn't intend for two people of the same sex to reproduce together.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Marriage is, but monogamy isnt, humans, indeed many apes, mate for life.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Marriage is, but monogamy isnt, humans, indeed many apes, mate for life.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Well some point along the line we decided that mating for life was a good idea. It could have come with the advent of society and concept of ownership came into play, where you want to be sure the child you are giving your stuff to is indeed yours.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Marriage is, but monogamy isnt, humans, indeed many apes, mate for life.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
and even if we're partially inclined to be monogamous by nature, what does that matter for marriage as a legal concept?

 Jihadin wrote:
Whatever happen of "Separation of Church and State?"

 cincydooley wrote:
particularly when they can make a pretty solid claim that evolution (not god) and nature didn't intend for two people of the same sex to reproduce together.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Marriage is, but monogamy isnt, humans, indeed many apes, mate for life.

 Ahtman wrote:
Bald Eagles mate for life.

 Fafnir wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Marriage is, but monogamy isnt, humans, indeed many apes, mate for life.

Humans, gibbons and siamangs are the only monogamous apes, and humans are the only monogamous great apes.

I'm just pissed that the idea of marriage has been so perverted over the years. It's truly a disgusting thing, to see something so pure change into something so warped. I remember the good old days, when it was a business transaction where we peddled off our women as objects in exchange for familial or monetary benefits. Truly better times.

 Frazzled wrote:
1. Amazingly, there's no evidence to suport the claim that there were weddings before religion.

 cincydooley wrote:
I agree with Frazzled, I think it was, in that all couples that want protection and benefits under the law should simply be called civil unions. Had this been the case in the first place, there'd have been no 'defense of marriage' to begin with.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Well some point along the line we decided that mating for life was a good idea. It could have come with the advent of society and concept of ownership came into play, where you want to be sure the child you are giving your stuff to is indeed yours.

 Vaktathi wrote:
A relatively minor numbers of humans mate for life, even fewer with only one partner (see how many sexual partners the average person has in the western world and the divorce rate). Monogamy is more a sociological/cultural constraint that has evolved into what it is only very slowly and and is a relatively recent introduction (in terms of human lineage) and even in many parts of the world today is a relatively recent introduction.